Zeiss & Voigtländer lenses for Leica M - user comments?

[Esox lucius]

Any members here who could give user feedback on these lenses? The bolded ones are most interesting to me, as that's a bag I'm thinking of buying. I'm especially interested in M9 user comments, as the crop factor of the M8 is not appealing to me. I know the system very well from the film age, and as this would be an off-duty camera bag I'm primarily not so interested in Leica's own glass (which I have disappointingly often found overrated/overpriced).

Zeiss 18/4 ZM
Zeiss 28/2.8 ZM
Voigtländer 28/2 or 28/1.9
Voigtländer 35/1.4
Voigtländer 35/1.2 Nokton
Zeiss Biogon 35/2 ZM
Zeiss Sonnar T* 50/1.5 ZM
Zeiss Planar T* 50/2 ZM
Voigtländer Heliar 75/1.8

What about the longer tele lenses? Any alternatives to Leitz glass if I'm looking for a 90, 135 or 180mm lens?

[kds315*]

I had theZeiss Biogon 35/2 ZM and Zeiss 28/2.8 ZM
and found both excellent performers.

[Orio]

[aleksanderpolo]

I do not have M9, so take it with a bag of salt:

I love the CV 35/1.2 II and C-Sonnar for people, and ZM 35/2 and ZM 50/2 for landscape. I dislike CV 35/1.4 very much.

By the way, you probably already know that the C-Sonnar, CV 35/1.4, and CV 28/2 (but not the 1.9) have focus shift.

[DanielT74]

Zeiss 18/4 is a fantastic lens with great colours, sharpness, contrast and a 3-d pop to the images (fairy dust!).

It is a little on the big side especially considering that it's fairly slow.

I agree with the other comments on the rest of the lenses (I use 18/4, 35/1.2, 50/1.5 on nex-5n).

[Esox lucius]

Thank you everyone!

I might skip the Distagon 18/4 and pick the Biogon 21/2.8 ZM in stead, 18mm is probably more often too wide for my liking whereas the 21mm would see more use.

The Biogon 35/2 ZM seems very very hard to pass on - it has long been a lens I like for the 3D and when Orio posts any of his superb city/travel series I always seem to find my favorites among the Biogon frames. Then again, a bag with both the 28/1.9 and/or 35/1.2 as well as the 35/2 is too dense for that focal length so I might skip the Voigtländers in the 28 to 35mm focal length.

The 50mm is mandatory, and the C-Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM seems to be The Choice.

"Before I retire" lenses

APO-Summicron-M 90/2 ASPH
APO-Telyt-M 135/3.4

[kansalliskala]

[Esox lucius]

[kansalliskala]

[Esox lucius]

Thank you, I really don't get it how I have managed to support myself for years without financial advice like yours. You are most welcome to share your bitterness and besserwism face to face if you visit Helsinki, but since you are unable to add comments related to these lenses I hope you go and offload somewhere else.

[Orio]

[Hari]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Now, I know you're talking high-end glass here, but there are a couple of lenses that are a fraction of these prices but I think are worthy of having too, at the price they cost, I think it's well worth having them:

Early Jupiter-3 1.5/50 or ZK 1.5/50. The ZK is a 1.5/50 Sonnar assembled in Russia from Zeiss parts by Zeiss personnel in the first couple of years after they relocated the factory, not so common but if you see one, the prices are pretty irresistible. The early J-3s are slightly different because they had to use Russian glass, but are very, very close in performance, these can be had very cheap in M39 and will work fine if you put an M adapter on them. From the many samples I've seen, these lenses can produce results that compare quite favourably to the Leica, Zeiss, CV modern ones.

Early Jupiter-12 2.8/35 or BK 2.8/35. The BK (Biogon Krasnogorsk) is another lens made in Russia from Zeiss parts by Zeiss workers. Not so common but if you see one, well worth having. Early J-12s use Russian glass but are excellent. I have a 1955 one and it's excellent, not as sharp as the modern Biogons but has a rendering that is very nice indeed and I think it's worth considering one of these for it's character.

Early Jupiter-11 4/135. Copy of the Sonnar 4/135, I have a 1957 copy that is stunning, better than the 4/135 and 3.5/135 CZJ Sonnars I've owned, in fact, I don't think I have tried a better 135mm lens. I have a 1963 one as well, and that one is just as good, perhaps a tad less microcontrast. I think this one is worth having because it's so small, I like it for street shooting because no-one notices this little silver lens but it gives you a good reach and you can do street portraits without being noticed.

[ForenSeil]

I've tried the Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.4 and the the Voigtländer Ultron 35/1.7 and I wasn't completly happy with them. A lot CAs, distortion, I didn't like the colors etc.
The Zeiss 35/2 and 35/2.8 are both somewhat better. The Zeiss 28/2.8 is also a very stellar lens.

The modern C Sonnar 50/1.5 is a lot better than the old Sonnar/Jupiter-3, especially in contrast, colors, flare control and also in resolution due minor tweaks and better coatings. But the old optical design still offers the nice dreamy look wide open (vignetting, sharp only in center, bokeh), which is imho very nice for potraits. Stopped down it's as as good a lens with modern design (or even better than some)

[Esox lucius]

Gentlemen, thank you very much for the insight. 25-35-50 plus a tele sounds like a well spaced camera bag to me. The wide is a good idea, I always found that the superwide is too much for me and they see less use, so replacing the 18 or 21mm with a normal wide makes it more useable to me. Of all wide shots I find myself continuously using 24mm even when I'm with the 14-24/2.8G Nikkor. Furthermore, I wouldn't consider it a camera bag if there weren't a tele in there so I think I'm going to stalk one of those 135mm on eBay.

The russians are very appealing and I might very well add them to a "stalk on eBay" -list, since they can with some luck be purchased for a low price.

[ForenSeil]

A substitute for the USSR Jupiter Biogon might be the Summaron as it's not much more expensive (at least the F3.5 version) and you usually won't have any problems with incorrect RF-couplings (common problem with the russian biogons)
The 1950ies Leitz Summaron 35mm is not as good as the modern 35/2 and 35/2.8 Biogon but as far as I know much better and cheaper than the Voigtländer 35/1.4 Nokton.

The 35/2.8 Summaron is a slight tack better than the 35/3.5 from what I've heard, but also more expensive.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f28.htm

[iangreenhalgh1]

A Zeiss Opton Sonnar 4/135 just went for 16ukp so with a bit of luck, you can pick up some old Zeiss glass at Russian prices too. I'm looking forward to comparing the Opton Sonnar to my 1957 J-11 copy of it, I suspect they will be very similar.

I don't agree with Forenseil about the difference between the Russian and German versions of the 1.5/50 Sonnar, I've seen plenty of RAW samples of both on the NEX-3 and the differences are very small. Later Russian copies are more variable so the earlier, the better with Russians.

[Esox lucius]

As an interesting (to me at least ) side-note: Reading internet comments and Lloyd Chambers reviews, it's interesting to note that the best ZM lenses also seem to be the best ZF.2 lenses. I would have guessed that the rangefinder ZM wides would be far more praised than the SLR ZF wides, given the optical advantages of the Leica M bodies' construction.

Furthermore interesting is, that here in Helsinki the biggest camera seller chain seems to abandon selling Zeiss lenses for both Canon and Nikon mount: POISTOTUOTE = Ausverkaufsware or "selling these out, we won't stock more". They continue to stock Zeiss ZM glass, at least for the moment.

http://www.rajalacamera.fi/-nikoniin-naf-/626/dg?openGroup=626

http://www.rajalacamera.fi/-canoniin-eos-/625/dg?openGroup=625

Some pretty good prices there for EU buyers, much cheaper than on eBay and seller is a very reputed camera dealer. "Only" 5604 EUR VAT 0% (6893 EUR incl. VAT 23%) for the whole set of Zeiss SLR lenses

[aleksanderpolo]

For review of ZM and CV lens, I found Sean Reid to be very helpful. Lloyd Chambers review mostly higher end Leica gear for M.

The C-Sonnar is unique in combining modern coating, Zeiss color, with Sonnar drawing. I have an old Nikkor Sonnar and they are very different. But it might not be very suitable for general purpose as its corner doesn't sharpen up like the Planar does. It also has a lot of purple fringing in large aperture, not to mention focus shift. It is a beautiful portrait lens meant to be used wide open though.